The NZ Veterinary Sector's Best-Kept & Most Dangerous Secret: That There ARE Competing Options in the Specialist Space
Jordan Kelly • 27 April 2026

Does Your Vet REALLY Only Have One Option When Your Pet Needs Specialist Care?  The Answer Might Surprise You . . . Along With What That Perceived Monopoly Has Been Costing New Zealand's Pets.

For most of New Zealand's history as a country with a serious pet-owning culture — and make no mistake, with 64 percent of New Zealand households owning at least one pet, many with several, we are absolutely that — the answer to the question of where a complex or specialist veterinary case gets referred has been, in effect, one word:  Massey.


New Zealand's only veterinary teaching hospital. The only domestic institution with the specialist staff, the equipment, and the mandate to handle the cases that your local vet isn't equipped to manage. The end of the referral road. The place you sent your pet and hoped for the best, because there was, quite literally, nowhere else.


That picture is changing. Not fast enough, and not completely — but it is changing. And every New Zealand pet owner needs to know it.


Across Auckland and Wellington in particular, the past decade has seen a quiet but significant growth in private veterinary specialist services. Internal medicine specialists. Veterinary oncologists. Soft tissue surgeons. Cardiologists. Neurologists.


Increasingly, these disciplines — once the exclusive domain of Massey's Companion Animal Hospital in Palmerston North — are available through private specialist practices in New Zealand's main centres.


For a pet owner in Auckland or Wellington facing a complex diagnosis, this matters enormously. It means that when your vet says "your pet needs specialist care", the next question you are now entitled to ask is: "What are ALL of our options?" — not just "When can we get an appointment at Massey?"


Purely By Way of Example of the Growing Number of Alternatives & Much-Needed Competition
(No Specific Endorsement Implied)


In Auckland, pet owners now have access to Veterinary Specialists Aotearoa (VSA) — operating across multiple Auckland locations and Christchurch, offering internal medicine, oncology, surgery, cardiology, imaging and 24-hour emergency care.

The Animal Referral Centre (ARC) provides internal medicine, specialist surgery, dermatology, oncology, neurology and emergency care at Auckland and Wellington clinics.


In Wellington, a feline specialist operates independently.


In Christchurch, a specialist surgical referral centre exists. VSA now offers phone and Zoom consultations to veterinarians across all of New Zealand — meaning geographic isolation is no longer the insurmountable barrier it once was.


The Veterinary Council of New Zealand itself maintains a Find A Specialist register - a useful starting point for pet owners seeking specialist options. (It should be noted, however, that database sits within a captured regulatory architecture whose complaint dismissal record ensures there exists, effectively, almost nil accountability for their registrants. Thus, in the view of the author, names on this source necessitate every ounce of research a pet owner can reasonably perform before blindly entrusting your pet into their care.)


Important Note:  References to any specific business are not in any way an endorsement of these organisations, their services or their staff. Their inclusions in this article are purely for the purpose of making the point that, increasingly, options exist outside the traditional Massey monopoly . . . and hopefully, with the correspondingly increased likelihood that your pet - unlike that of this author - will not be catastrophically sedated for the convenience of lazy, negligent and incompetent ICU staff, abused, tortured, misappropriated for use in student “educational” activities and filming on cell phones, before then being presented back for shock urgent “euthanasia” under the false pretences of a sudden “neurological decline” (when being admitted 15 hours earlier for a simple rehydration procedure).


That said, a significant percentage of the specialists within non-Massey options will still be Massey graduates. So again, the diligent pet owner will perform the most responsible degree of prior research of which they are capable – before handing over their beloved pet and their credit card (which sometimes sees its negative balance added to by into the five figures).


While the Massey pipeline is unavoidable given that institution’s historic monopoly on domestic veterinary education, choosing a separate entity entirely does ensure the pet owner of an unrelated clinical culture, different supervisory structures, and at least some degree of internal accountability framework (one would hope). At the very least, if a practitioner had a record for harming pets and - by extension - their owners, at some point commercial reality would necessitate their removal from that practice.


Also, avoiding a teaching environment means the pet is not being submitted to an institution that requires a certain amount of pets for utilisation in student educational practices, dramatically lessening the chances of a pet being subjected to clinically and ethically irresponsible, undisclosed research and educational activities without owner consent  – which, in the case of the author’s pet, had a fatal (albeit unnecessarily so) outcome.


A Massey graduate practicing in a well-run private specialist facility operates in a completely different professional environment to one operating within Massey's own institutional walls — where, as has now been documented in forensic detail, unsupervised junior staff have been left to both engineer life and death outcomes.


The issue of choice matters for reasons that go well beyond geography, travel stress for your animal, or convenience.


It matters because monopolies — even well-intentioned ones — are dangerous.


In any industry, the absence of competition produces, at best, complacency. At worst, this author has experienced not once but twice in her own deeply personal and devastating history with New Zealand's only veterinary “teaching” “hospital”, it produces something far more serious:  arrogance, unaccountability, and a culture in which standards are not merely allowed to slip – they are allowed to collapse entirely, behind closed doors, with no competitive pressure and no meaningful consequence. And also a culture that bullies pet owners into submission and silence, through whatever means possible.


The most recent of those two experiences – the unnecessary, fraudulent, and institutionally protected killing of her beloved vibrant little 15-year-old papillon, Harry Kelly, at Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital on December 1, 2025 — is now the subject of processes including a formal police complaint under the Crimes Act 1961 (for records falsification), an MPI Animal Welfare Inspectorate investigation, and a Law Society complaint against the CEO of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand for his role in facilitating the continued cover-up of this monumental collapse in veterinary ethics.


The full and confronting detail of what was found at Massey's Companion Animal Hospital — unsupervised junior staff making life and death decisions without qualified oversight, massive overdosing with contraindicated drugs administered without owner consent or clinical justification, records falsified, and a co-ordinated institutional cover-up managed by external legal counsel at taxpayer expense — is laid out in an ongoing series of investigative exposes here: The Killing of Harry Kelly.


Read it. Then ask yourself whether the absence of a competitive alternative to Massey for specialist veterinary care in this country has served New Zealand's pets and their owners well.

 

The Problem Isn't Just the Lack of Competition.
It's the Capture of the Bodies That Are Supposed to Ensure Accountability.


If a growing private specialist sector represents one part of the answer to New Zealand's veterinary accountability deficit, it is emphatically not the whole answer.


Because the deeper and more structurally dangerous problem isn't just that Massey has operated without meaningful competition. It's that the bodies mandated to hold Massey — and New Zealand's veterinary profession more broadly — to account, have been so thoroughly and so structurally compromised by their relationships with the very institution they're supposed to regulate, that the concept of independent oversight has become, in practice, largely fictitious.


Consider the architecture.


The Veterinary Council of New Zealand — the statutory body established under the Veterinarians Act 2005 to protect the public by ensuring veterinary standards are upheld — has among its seven Council members, the Academic Program Director of Massey University's own undergraduate veterinary program. The same body that receives and adjudicates complaints about Massey's veterinary program has, sitting at its own table, a senior Massey academic whose entire professional identity is bound up in the institution being complained about.


That's not a conflict of interest. That's structural capture.


And it doesn't stop there. Not by a long shot.


The VCNZ's own Professional Advisor on policy and standards holds — or has held — a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at Massey's School of Veterinary Science.


The VCNZ CEO, a registered lawyer, is the subject of a formal and active complaint to the New Zealand Law Society for his handling — or more accurately, his deliberate non-handling — of a complaint against Massey, having received a private briefing from Massey's Dean characterising the complaint as "wholly unfounded" before making a promise of assistance to the complainant that he never kept and never intended to keep. That is, assistance by way of compelling Massey to disclose the names of the veterinary staff involved with Harry Kelly's case . . . since the VCNZ neatly ensures that an institution or practice can't be complained about, only individual practitioners. And since Massey has carefully redacted all names from the deceased's records (or those that it has so far been forced under the various Acts to release), no complaints can be laid. (It should also be noted, that Massey has simply ignored many Privacy Act and Official Information Act requests, albeit these are considered the holy grail of information accessibility to the public in New Zealand.)


When 'Accreditation' Is More A Con than A Guarantee of Anything


I'll write extensively about this in upcoming articles - both here on The Customer & The Constituent and on IIIVE.org i.e. the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics. But for now, a briefer commentary, purely for the purposes of the implications of this (in the view of this author) pay-to-play marketing exercise.


Upstream from the above sits the national and international "accreditation" structure.


The VCNZ is itself a member of the Australasian Veterinary Boards Council — the body that accredits Massey's veterinary program. The current Chair of the VCNZ is a Massey University graduate. The body that accredits Massey, with the regulator that polices Massey sitting inside it, chaired by a product of the institution both are supposed to hold to account.


This is not a system with conflicts of interest. This is a system that is the conflict of interest.


Atop of all that, at the international level, is - again, according to the investigations to date of this author - a truly farcical structure of turn-a-blind-eye, just-keep-your-fees-paid, multi-year, rubber stamping.


Any pet owner or other reader who wants to get the flavour of this old boys and old girls network in operation, should follow the Correspondence trails in the Harry Kelly Case Study page of IIIVE.org.

 

What This Means in Practice . . . And How Often It Happens


The uncomfortable reality is this:


The average New Zealand pet owner who experiences veterinary negligence, malpractice, or misconduct (or worse) has almost no realistic prospect of a successful complaint outcome through the existing regulatory architecture. Their complaint, is, in fact, unlikely to even make it to a hearing.


The numbers tell their own story. According to a peer-reviewed study published in the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, of the 1,218 complaints and notifications received by the VCNZ between 1992 and 2016, 818 — 67.2% — were not even investigated or were dismissed outright. A mere 18 complaints — just 1.5% of the total — were upheld on the basis of technical competency concerns.


Read that again. Eighteen complaints upheld in 24 years.


The study — co-authored, with considerable irony, by J.F. Weston of Massey University's School of Veterinary Science, the same Dr Jenny Weston who currently sits on the VCNZ Council — explicitly acknowledges its own limitation:


"These data should not be interpreted as an accurate indicator of the prevalence of misconduct in practice, as the proportion of dissatisfied clients who did not raise a notification or complaint is unknown."


In other words, Weston's own published research concedes that the true scale of veterinary misconduct in New Zealand is unknowable — because most pet owners never complain at all. The 67.2% dismissal rate and the 1.5% uphold rate therefore represent not the ceiling of the problem, but its floor.


Let that sink in for a moment.


The Academic Program Director of the only veterinary school in New Zealand co-authored the peer-reviewed study documenting her own regulator's 67.2% complaint dismissal rate — while sitting on the council that produces that dismissal rate.


The VCNZ CEO whose Law Society complaint is currently active was her colleague at that same council throughout. And the VCNZ's Professional Advisor on policy and standards held a concurrent appointment as an Adjunct Lecturer at the very institution whose complaints this council was supposed to be independently adjudicating.


That isn't irony. That's the whole story in three people.


The Pet Owners Who Never Knew


What the data doesn't show — because it can't — is how many New Zealand pet owners experienced something that warranted a complaint but never made one.


Because they didn't know they could.


Because they were too grief-stricken to fight.


Because the process was too opaque, too intimidating, or too clearly tilted against them to seem worth the effort.


Because they were, as one pet owner described her own experience, "sent around in circles" until they gave up.


But the largest category of all — dwarfing even the pet owners who knew they had grounds to complain but didn't pursue it — is the category that no statistic will ever capture: the pet owners who never knew.


Who left a veterinary facility believing what they had been told.


Who accepted the diagnosis, the prognosis, the explanation for why their pet didn't make it.


Who had no invoice to forensically examine months later.


Who had no background in investigative journalism.


Who had no reason to question what the vet had written in a clinical summary they never thought to request — or wouldn't have known how to interpret if they had.


Who simply went home, grieved, and tried to move on. Even when things hadn't seemed at all right.


Not because nothing went wrong. But because they had no way of knowing that it had. Or what had.


This author came within a hair's breadth of being in that category. It wasn't professional training alone that saved me from living in very unblissful ignorance . . . it was the chance discovery of an invoice I strategically had not been given at the time of payment, and - with the feeling that nothing had ever been right about Massey's whole story - my forensic instinct to read the line items of that invoice and uncover the real story behind the cover-up that had actually played out. And that had cost my beloved little dog his life - with all the extraordinary cruelties that had been inflicted upon him leading up to it and in the service of the despicable end-goal of that cover-up.


Most pet owners don't get that chance. Or don't take it. Or don't know to take it.


So, how often does this happen? Undoubtedly, far more often than the official complaint statistics will ever reflect.


And in a regulatory environment as captured as New Zealand's veterinary oversight currently is, that gap between what happens and what gets recorded is not a flaw in the system. It's the system working exactly as those who benefit from it have designed it to work.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

UPDATED: Coming Up . . . For Readers Following Massey's Harry Kelly Horror Story

by Jordan Kelly • 9 September 2026
And A Reminder to Massey: I Will Continue Exposing the Dark Underbelly of Your Despicable Institution Until Every Pet Owner in New Zealand Is Warned & Every Potential Student Is Made Aware of Precisely What You 'Teach' _______________________________________________________________

Hey, DG Ray Smith: Your Weak Investigators Handed the Ball Back to the Collusive Vet Council. Here Are SOME of the Massey Horrors MPI Is Pretending Not to See

by Jordan Kelly • 9 September 2026
Weak, Collusive or Both? MPI 'Investigators' Had A 342-Page Dossier of Hard Evidence (& Hundreds of Other Documents) FOR MONTHS . . . And Suddenly Handed It Off to the Demonstrably Collusive Vet Council, with One Weak-Willed Sentence and No Explanation. So . . . What Happened, Mr Director General?

UPDATED WITH WARNING TO ALL INTENDING STUDENTS & THEIR ADVISORS: Deceived or Part of the Deception? Massey Vet Student Environment Unfit for Purpose

by Jordan Kelly • 9 September 2026
MORAL INJURY OR EQUALLY EVIL? Massey Vet Students on December 1: Were You Deceived . . . or Participants In the Deception? (PART ONE) UPDATE 9.9.26 (For any intending student, parent funding a student, or careers advisor, wanting to ensure quality and ethical veterinary education, here's your warning): The Massey "neurologist" and veterinary "educator"who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent (or convenient) inability to discern between a "sedated" dog and a "demented" dog, with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted fellow "educator" " Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction, following Jalava's utilisation of him as a live teaching prop and as student "educational" video content . The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills" and collusion with Jalava) vehemently urges ALL young persons seeking an ethical and competent education in veterinary science, to look elsewhere for your studies.

UPDATED 8.9.26 Massey Vet Teaching Hospital ICU: Where Empathy & Ethics Go to Die

by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
UPDATE 8.9.26: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent inability to discern the distinction between "sedated" and "demented" with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted "Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction. The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills") vehemently urges all pet owners to avoid any contact with this "clinician" - who, in the author's opinion is incomprehensibly incompetent, or utterly monstrous. Or perhaps, both. THIRD UPDATE: Since the original January 16 publication of this article, and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved, the day shift clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava. She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, fraud, and fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life . However, Jalava's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion — after "teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming — were the grounds on which I was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of my own deeply beloved dog. The identities of the night shift veterinarian and ICU staff responsible for the overnight overdosing described in this article — the repeated, catastrophic levels of contraindicated administration of Gabapentin and Prevomax to a renally-compromised patient between approximately midnight and 9am on December 1, 2025 — remain unknown and actively withheld by Massey. If you were on duty in Massey's Companion Animal Hospital ICU on the night of November 30 into December 1, 2025, or if you have knowledge of who was, this investigation would like to hear from you. UPDATE TO READERS: Since writing this article, my continuing research has indicated that Harry was likely not only simply sedated (and massively so) for the sake of the ICU staff's convenience, but also to facilitate a multiplicity of training procedures to be conducted upon him - with the intention that the fronting clinician, "Steffi", would present him as requiring urgent "euthanasia" through a sudden natural decline in his condition. Unfortunately, for Massey management and personnel, I have not only my own memory of him standing strongly on his back legs in his ICU cage at midnight and reaching through the door for comfort, but also now a video of him actively "circling" on the ICU floor, just hours before he was presented to me in a flacid, semi-comatose state with no viable explanation other than some supposedly nature decline. UPDATE TO THE UPDATE : The above indications have not only since been confirmed , but what actually happened to Harry was far worse, and constituted much more than gross malpractice. My latest findings move the entire matter squarely into the category of malfeasance - both at the clinical level and at the highest levels of Massey's management. The Reckless Practice of 'Convenience Sedation' & the True Cost of Clinical Apathy

UPDATED 8.9.26: KILLING HARRY . . . The Gabapentin Gamble, Massey's 'Educational' 'Re-Purposing' of Clients' Pets & the Cover-Up

by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
8.9.26 UPDATE: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent inability to discern the distinction between "sedated" and "demented" with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted "Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction. The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills") vehemently urges all pet owners to avoid any contact with this "clinician" - who, in the author's opinion is incomprehensibly incompetent, or utterly monstrous. Or perhaps, both. UPDATE: Since the original January 31 publication of this article, and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved , the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava. She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, fraud, and fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life . However, Jalava's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion - after " teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming - were the grounds on which I was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of my own deeply beloved dog . From Lethal Incompetence and Malpractice . . . to Withholding of Life-Saving Corrective Action in Favour of Utilisation As A Teaching Aid . . . to A Fraudulent Diagnosis . . . to A Coerced 'Euthanasia' to Destroy the Evidence . . . to Management Malfeasance At the Highest Levels

UPDATED 8.9.26 ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous?

by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary UPDATE 8.9.26: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent (or convenient) inability to discern between a "sedated" dog and a "demented" dog, with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted " Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction, following Jalava's utilisation of him as a live teaching prop and as student "educational" video content . The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills" and collusion with Jalava) vehemently urges ALL pet owners to avoid any contact with these "clinicians" - who, in the author's opinion are incomprehensibly incompetent but worse and even more so, utterly monstrous.

UPDATED 8.9.26: MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.

UPDATED 8.9.26: CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey

by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
UPDATE 8.9.26: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent inability to discern between a "sedated" dog and a "demented" dog, with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted "Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction, following Jalava's utilisation of him as a live teaching prop and as student "educational" video content. The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills" and collusion with Jalava) vehemently urges ALL pet owners to avoid any contact with these "clinicians" - who, in the author's opinion are incomprehensibly incompetent but worse and even more so, utterly monstrous. UPDATE: Since the original February 15 publication of this article, and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved , the clinician who delivered the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava . She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, fraud, and fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life . However, Jalava's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion - after " teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming - were the grounds on which I was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of my own deeply beloved dog . My investigation to uncover the names of the ICU staff who, on the night of November 30 , began the catastrophic repeated sedative cocktail overdosing , will continue. As will my endeavours to determine - what I believe is the near-certainty of the fact and the identities of whom administered - the undocumented continuance of the sedation prior to my arrival and the plan to present Harry falsely to me as having suffered some sudden "neurological" event or decline . . . so that I would sign the form for his immediate "euthanasia" . This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )

UPDATED 8.9.26: Off-the-Charts Evil In New Zealand's Veterinary House of Horrors . . . A Pet Parent's Victim Impact Statement

by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
UPDATE 8.9.26: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent inability to discern the distinction between "sedated" and "demented" with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted "Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction. The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills") vehemently urges all pet owners to avoid any contact with this "clinician" - who, in the author's opinion is incomprehensibly incompetent, or utterly monstrous. Or perhaps, both. UPDATE: Since the original January 21 publication of this article, and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved , the clinician who peddled Shea's fraudulent diagnosis, and who "administered" the lethal injection (ripping the cap off the syringe with her teeth, such is her way) has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava . She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life . However, Jalava's peddling of Shea's completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion - after she and Shea had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming - was the fraudulent basis upon which I was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of my own deeply beloved dog . My investigation to uncover the names of the ICU staff who, on the night of November 30 , began the catastrophic repeated sedative cocktail overdosing , will continue. As will my endeavours to determine - what is the now-certainty of the fact and the identities of whom administered - the undocumented continuance of the sedation prior to my arrival in order to facilitate the plan to present Harry falsely to me as having suffered some sudden "neurological" event or decline . . . so that I would sign the form for his immediate "euthanasia" . Off-the-Charts Evil: New Zealand's Veterinary House of Horrors . . A Pet Parent's Victim Impact Statement

UPDATED 8.9.26: PROOF Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest

by Jordan Kelly • 8 September 2026
UPDATE 8.9.26: The Massey "neurologist" who apparently (or conveniently) can't tell a "demented" dog from a catastrophically (contraindicated) sedative-overdosed dog, has been named: She is "Dr" Anita Shea. Shea's apparent inability to discern between a "sedated" dog and a "demented" dog, with said dog on a table in front of her, greatly assisted "Dr" Steffi Jalava in her prolonged and intensive coercion of the owner for Harry's immediate (and as it later transpired, totally without cause) destruction, following Jalava's utilisation of him as a live teaching prop and as student "educational" video content. The author (and owner of the precious NON-"demented" little papillon who was sent to a totally unnecessary death based on Shea's "diagnostic skills" and collusion with Jalava) vehemently urges ALL pet owners to avoid any contact with these "clinicians" - who, in the author's opinion are incomprehensibly incompetent but worse and even more so, utterly monstrous. UPDATE: Since the original February 17 publication of this article, and despite Massey's ongoing efforts to obscure the identities of those involved , the clinician who promoted the fraudulent diagnosis and administered the lethal injection has been identified by her full name: Dr Steffi Maja Jalava . She is far from the only person culpable for the torture, the fraud, and the fully unnecessary termination of Harry's life . However, Jalava's promotion of the completely false "terminal" "neurological" "diagnosis" and "prognosis" delivered throughout two hours of aggressive coercion - after " teaching" staff had finished their unauthorised and unspeakably cruel utilisation of Harry in student activities and filming - were the grounds on which I was duped into signing a "euthanasia" "consent" form . . . and worse still, participating therefore in the wrongful killing of my own deeply beloved dog . My investigation to uncover the names of the ICU staff who, on the night of November 30 , began the catastrophic repeated sedative cocktail overdosing , will continue. As will my endeavours to determine - what I believe is the near-certainty of the fact and the identities of whom administered - the undocumented continuance of the sedation prior to my arrival in order to facilitate the plan to present Harry falsely to me as having suffered some sudden "neurological" event or decline . . . so that I would sign the form for his immediate "euthanasia" . The falsification of clinical records designed to bury this evidence — including the December 3 data scrub and the manipulation of Harry's Patient Change Log — is the subject of Police Report OR-2484821N. Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD .
Show More